28 comments:

Shatner always delivers. Even outside of his Star Trek work you can always find him somewhere where his role stood out (Twilight Zone, Third Rock from the Sun, and Airplane II are all coming to mind right now).

Yes, he entertained you with words written by other people, to direction my even more other people. All of whom for the most part have fallen by the wayside of history, or at least held in nowhere near the same stature. All of this being despite the fact that he was far more dependent on them than they him.

HE an enteraining man? He is. That goes without saying, But, without those people, he would just be a canuck who craves attention, and no outlet.

There is certainly no shame in enjoying him. But I am obviously far more important to your life, and certainly have a more direct connection. What's more, it all comes from my noodle.

And based on the criteria that got Shatner his day mine should be on... last Wednesday. The day you gave to the poutine-eater. So I guess you have 362 days to get that parade worked out.

What you weren't a fan of the far less interesting rip-off of America's Most Wanted and Unsolved Mysteries?

I don't have a low opinion. I just don't have a particularly high one.

Any job in a creative medium is full people willing to do your job just as well, or better, for less money. None more so than actors.

If you take out the name recognition and go solely on importance of creating a a great piece of fiction... actors are the absolute least important part. They are seriously the most replaceable people on set or stage, in terms of talent or skill.

That doesn't mean I can't enjoy them, but in the modern world, the amount of actors still alive that I truly respect is few and far between.

I do however have an unending amount of respect and praise for voice actors. Who not only have more talent and difficulty involved in their job than the normal actor, but exist in a world of obscurity... with the exception of those who truly care.

Sort of like comics.

The funny thing is, I don't even really celebrate my birthday, except for dinner with my parents (Jewish mother, you get it. "I was in labor for blah, blah,blah" I want to spend time with... you get it.) I just came to your website when I was bored.

I stand by my statements though.

I do think you need to admit that I have more of an impact on you than Shatner. At least in a day to day sense. Which means I WIN the March 22 birthday here at Creation Point.

If all that actors did was to entertain us, take us away from our cares & worries for a couple of hours, that "all" would be plenty in itself.

But a truly good actor does more than that. I've seen performances of stories that I've seen many times before & thought I knew thoroughly ... and then, one actor brings their part to vibrant life, so that I'm hearing those familiar lines as if for the first time. And it's not just any interchangeable actor -- it's THAT actor.

And in some cases, an actor becomes the embodied avatar of an era, or of a complex of emotions, that speaks directly to our hearts & souls. And it's only THAT actor who can do it, who can make the ephemeral yet enduring magic of a performance that adds to one's own life in some way, that gives or enables new insight, new understanding, new empathy.

Is a singer who simply sings the words & music of others interchangeable? Can you swap out Sinatra for anyone who can halfway carry a tune, and it makes no difference? If Ronald Reagan had indeed played Rick in "Casablanca" (as might well have happened), would Rick still be the exact same person, no different from Bogart, because he's saying the same words? Would the tone & mood of the film be exactly the same?

To my mind & in my experience, a truly good actor is an artist, no less than any other performer.

Beautifully, eloquently said, Tim. And I couldn't agree more. The reference to Sinatra is a perfect illustration.

And I'd add one more thing: Like singers—and unlike writers, directors, painters, etc., who create their art then sail it out into the world—an actor puts him or herself out there. They are physically embodying their art—in front of a judgement-filled audience—in a powerful, but profoundly vulnerable, way. And that takes a wonderful, crazy kind of courage.

Collaborative efforts are mystical entities that can't be broken down to the sum of their parts.

Discussions about who contributed what can be fun--even productive--but at the end of the day, there's no way to take any collaborator out of the equation.

I think these kinds of conversations tend to be most useful when an individual's contributions are underappreciated. In the 60s and 70s, for instance, Stan Lee got more credit than Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko, but there was some pushback in the 80s that brought artists' contributions to the forefront of the industry. Of course, the downside was that some people thought they couldn't highlight Kirby's contributions without minimizing Stan Lee's.

Whenever two or more people collaborate on a project, it's chemistry. The slightest change produces radically different results.

I did a podcast interview yesterday, David, and we spent quite a bit of time talking about the mysteries of creative chemistry. And you're right, it really "can't be broken down to the sum of its parts."

I often use KRAVEN'S LAST HUNT as an example. Mike Zeck and I had some magical chemistry on that and, even if I'd written the story exactly the same way, same panel breakdowns, same dialogue and captions, if someone else had drawn the story, it might not be remembered today. It was the chemical reaction between my words and Mike's pictures that gave the story its lasting impact. And it's a reaction that, for all the analysis, can never really be explained.

And, to get back to the source of the discussion, that applies to actors, as well. I remember back in the 90's, when I was working on the SUPERBOY TV show, watching my episodes and realizing that, no matter how good my own scripts were, if there wasn't a perfect balance between the story, the actors and the directors, the episode just wouldn't work. A great script may not reach its onscreen potential, another script, perhaps not as good, may be raised to unforeseen heights by a director's choices and an actor's performance.

My favorite example of chemistry between actors that causes a project to becomes something more, something ingrained into the human consciousness is Repo Man. Every person brought something so unique to their specific acting abilities to their role that cause a bizarro type of universe that kind of resembles ours but is filled with generic product and aliens in cars. Tracey Walter as Miller filled his role in such a way that if you tried using another actor it would have probably felt flat at the worst or just so different that it might have affected the entire tone of the film itself. A great actor will always make a difference.

I (clearly!) agree, Douglas. There are so many examples like that we could list, but one that comes to mind goes back a long way to when I first saw the movie version of THE DEAD ZONE (one of my favorite Stephen King novels). Christopher Walken gave an amazing performance that transcended the script and filled the silences with meaning that would not have been there without him. I remember thinking how he elevated the entire film because of what he brought to that role.

You have recommended that one to me before. Currently, I am wading through a pile of Nick Carter, Killmaster books I got for a song. I discovered that I can't read any if they were writing in first person. I guess because I started out with the ones that were written in third person. Maybe after those are gone.